Tag Archives : Build House

Freedom Caucus lobbies against same-sex marriage bill despite chair voting for it

The House Freedom Caucus is urging Senate Republicans to oppose the Respect for Marriage Act that would codify federal protections for same-sex marriage, even though its chair, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), voted in favor of the legislation.

“The ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ was rushed through the House as yet another weapon to distract, confuse, and deceive American Citizens. It allowed no hearings or markups, and less than a day to review,” the Freedom Caucus said in its official position statement.

“The radical Left has launched an all-out campaign on America’s traditional values and sacred institutions. It has weakened the nuclear family, attacked the norms of masculinity and femininity, and now it wants to further erode the sacred institution of marriage,” the caucus said. “This bill is both unnecessary and undermines the recognition of ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman. After overwhelmingly opposing the ‘Respect for Marriage Act,’ the House Freedom Caucus urges the Senate Republican Conference to oppose it as well.”

The bill would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage for federal purposes as being between one man and one woman, and protect marriages between interracial couples. Democrats brought up the bill as a response to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas writing that the Court should “reconsider” its substantive due process precedents in several cases, specifically naming the case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide but not the case that protected interracial marriage.

The Respect for Marriage Act passed in the House on Tuesday with the support of 47 Republicans – including Perry.

The York Daily Record reported that Perry said his vote would codify the assurance that interracial couples would not face discrimination.

“Agree or disagree with same-sex marriage, my vote affirmed my long-held belief that Americans who enter into legal agreements deserve to live their lives without the threat that our federal government will dissolve what they’ve built,” Perry told the York Daily Record.

Another 157 Republicans voted against the bill, including the vast majority of Freedom Caucus members.

House Freedom Caucus bylaws require a supermajority of at least 80 percent of the caucus in order to take an official position, according to founding caucus member and former chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)’s political memoir “Do What You Said You Would Do.”

The bill needs at least 10 Republican votes to pass in the Senate to overcome a Senate filibuster, and there is a distinct possibility that it gets that support. Four Senate Republicans so far have said they would vote for the bill.

Source: TEST FEED1

Nixon v. Trump: Pardon v. prosecution

President Gerald Ford’s pardon of former President Richard Nixon is increasingly being cited as relevant to whether or not U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland should prosecute former President Donald Trump for any crimes he may have committed related to the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The comparison, however, is a false one and should have no bearing on Garland’s decision.

A pardon is an inherently political act, while a prosecution is an act of law enforcement. I’ve worked at that intersection where the political and legal worlds bump up against each other — first, as leader of the Watergate and Cover-up Task Force on the staff of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry in 1974, and later, as counsel to former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. It’s vital to recognize and maintain the separation of the two considerations.

In Nixon’s case, the two became intertwined in a way that muddies the water. Initially, Ford said he would not decide on whether to pardon Nixon until there had been at least an indictment and perhaps a conviction. He then realized that he would face unending questions on the topic if he waited to act, so he acted preemptively just one month after Nixon’s resignation.

Ford justified his pardon as being good for the country, writing in his proclamation that “the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States.” 

That political judgment about the current and future state of domestic tranquility is well within the competence of a president to make when exercising the pardon power, but it is not a relevant consideration for a grand jury considering indictment or a prosecutor charged with enforcing law.

Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a memoir on the prosecution of Watergate. In it, he wrote that, prior to the pardon, all of his staff members who expressed a view favored Nixon’s indictment.

Jaworski cites with approval — and as representative — a memorandum prepared by staff attorney George Frampton, who wrote, “[T]here is no established framework — no publicly-accepted set of criteria — within which to make your decision except the traditional one of a prosecutor. Familiar factors of prosecutorial discretion, of course, uniformly dictate prosecution here.” Frampton noted that it is a core principle that charges be pursued “without political influence or political considerations but with regard only for the truth.” Jaworski doesn’t say whether, absent the pardon, he would have prosecuted Nixon.

Similarly, Garland repeatedly has made clear that the starting — and most often ending — point for a prosecutor is to “follow the facts and law wherever they lead.” Yet the potentially divisive political ramifications of prosecuting a former president remain prominent in public discussion. Once again, the political and legal considerations bump up against each other. 

The primary consideration, however, should be the ability to prove the guilt of the accused. Nixon’s guilt for obstruction cannot be doubted. The infamous “smoking gun” tape made clear that he personally directed his aides to engage in a cover-up of high-level White House and reelection committee involvement in the Watergate break-in. 

The evidence against Trump is still unfolding through the work of the January 6^th Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. What is unquestionable is that, for the first time in American history, there was a failure to transition power peacefully following a presidential election. The political and legal worlds clashed violently, as Trump and his supporters sought to overturn the outcome of a free and fair election.

Some have questioned whether Trump could receive a fair trial, given the amount of pretrial publicity, thereby raising a political concern about the legal process. But that process should not be denigrated to promote a desired political outcome. Jury selection would exclude those who lack an open mind on whether Trump might be guilty.

Others have questioned whether a conviction could be obtained in the District of Columbia where he would be tried. Given the evidence already public, the likelihood that Trump would be acquitted seems remote. A hung jury is a clear possibility. That risk would be reduced if the prosecution’s theory of the case did not turn on whether Trump in fact believed that the election had been stolen.

Ultimately, the legal decision should not be based on politics — whether concern over the divisiveness that might result, or accusations of potential unfairness, or worries about the judicial outcome. Political and legal considerations should be kept separate. Garland lacks the right and power to grant Trump a de facto pardon, if he is charged with a crime. The strength of the legal case should determine any prosecution.

Evan A. Davis, an attorney, is a former counsel to New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and was president of the New York City Bar Association (2000-2002).

Source: TEST FEED1

Germany to bail out its largest importer of Russian gas

The German government has agreed to bail out the country’s biggest importer of Russian natural gas, in a 15-billion-euro ($15.3-billion) deal aimed at keeping the struggling energy supplier afloat.

Germany will be taking a 30-percent equity stake in Uniper SE, a subsidiary of the Finnish corporation Fortum, according to a Friday announcement from Fortum.

The country has offered Uniper up to 7.7 billion euros ($7.9 billion) in equity and is expanding its credit line by 7 billion euros ($7.2 billion) — from an existing 2 billion euros ($2 billion) to 9 billion euros ($9.2 billion), the announcement said.

The deal was welcome news to a company that has been experiencing significant losses following Russia’s recent reductions in gas deliveries. Uniper had become what CNBC described as “the first major casualty of Russia’s natural gas squeeze.”

After Russian state-controlled energy giant Gazprom had already reduced exports through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to 40 percent capacity last month, the company shuttered the conduit entirely for 10 days of maintenance on July 11.

Gas flow through Nord Stream 1 resumed on Thursday, but is flowing at only 40 percent capacity. 

“It was necessary to stabilize Uniper now,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said at a Friday press conference, according to the Associated Press.

“About 60 percent of gas imports in Germany are ultimately organized in a certain way via this distributor,” Scholz continued. “That is a very, very big chunk, so it’s clear you can imagine that there would have been practically no company at the end of these supply chain that wouldn’t be affected.”

The German government indicated that it was ready to provide further support if Uniper’s operating losses due to ongoing gas cuts end up exceeding an agreed total amount of 7 billion euros ($7.2 billion), according the Fortum announcement. 

Per the agreement, Fortum’s approximately 80-percent stake in Uniper will be diluted to 56 percent on the initial equity injection, according to Fortum, whose largest shareholder is the Finnish government.

Tytti Tuppurainen, Finland’s Minister for European Affairs and Ownership Steering, described the deal as “the best possible compromise under these circumstances and within this timeframe.”

Fortum’s president and CEO, Markus Rauramo, likewise praised the parties involved for finding a solution that “met the interest of all parties involved.”

“We are living through an unprecedented energy crisis that requires robust measures,” Rauramo said in a statement.

“We were driven by urgency and the need to protect Europe’s security of supply in a time of war,” he added. 

Source: TEST FEED1

How to make Putin understand that we mean business

A pervasive trope in writing on Russia argues that since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats are inherently credible, we should refrain from provocative moves lest they provoke a further escalation. 

This argument is unsound, and its recipe for action is precisely the opposite of what should be done. While we should not gratuitously provoke Russia, the war in Ukraine shows that restraint, seen from the Kremlin, merely connotes weakness and invites further aggression. 

So, while NATO made many sound decisions at its Madrid summit, some of them remain incomplete — for example, the decision to establish merely an army corps headquarters in Poland rather than a full complement of forces there. This decision is incomplete for many reasons.

First, it is an example of our pulling our punches to avoid provoking Russia and seemingly violating the NATO-Russian treaty of 1997, arguably a treaty that is no longer valid given Muscovite aggression against Ukraine since 2014. But the fact remains, as others have noted, that the claim that Putin never backs down is simply wrong and contradicted by abundant evidence. 

For example, Kazakhstan has publicly resisted the war yet, as of this writing, apparently induced if not compelled Moscow to back away from its coercive diplomacy. Therefore, it is unlikely that Moscow will assess NATO’s half-step as signifying restraint. Thinking that way substitutes our calculus for Russia’s.   

More likely, this restraint is seen as a sign of faltering will since Moscow has now ordered an intensification of fighting in Ukraine, i.e. escalating rather than reciprocating restraint.

At the same time, there are compelling operational-strategic and military reasons for deploying a full army corps in Poland to conduct conventional deterrence and potentially wartime operations. 

First, the current war already teaches us lessons appropriate to conventional deterrence in Europe. Putin spent 2021-22 building up a combined arms force of as many as 200,000 troops around Ukraine. Yet far too many observers in and out of governments were still surprised when he began hostilities on Feb. 24. Since the Russian army has already shown itself, at least to some degree, to be a learning army, the next time Russia invades a European state, we will probably not be so fortunate as to have a long lead time to contemplate Putin’s decisionmaking.

And if Russia somehow achieves what it can spin as a victory in Ukraine, there certainly will be a next time. Therefore, the idea that Putin will refrain from attacking NATO members does not stand up to rigorous analysis, especially as Russia, from its own perspective, has been at war with Europe since 2005. And since Moscow’s reckoning is the only one that counts, NATO and the European Union must internalize the realization that they are and have long been under attack. The rationale for leaving the troops behind the headquarters is precisely that if Russia attacks, their rapid deployment to the front will then be feasible.

However, under current and foreseeable circumstances, the idea that we can then rapidly bring sufficient forces from the rear to the front over a decidedly problematic transportation infrastructure and through a war zone in time to prevent a Russian fait accompli is highly dubious. 

Thus U.S. capabilities and deployments must be considered with a view towards denying Russia (and China) the possibility of a rapid victory. As David Ochmanek of the Rand Corporation has written, “A rapid fait accompli would leave the U.S. president and allies with a terrible choice of relying on coercive measures or taking months to deploy sufficient forces to liberate lost territory with a counteroffensive campaign.”  

In turn, this strategic consideration leads on to another equally compelling reason for deploying a full corps in Poland. Russia’s entire strategy aims to give Moscow escalation dominance throughout all stages of a crisis by winning rapidly and simultaneously making nuclear threats to deter, inhibit and intimidate NATO or the U.S. from replying. By deploying sufficient forces to theaters at risk like Poland and the Baltics, we negate Russia’s strategy and foreclose the option of a rapid conventional victory that permits Moscow to make all manner of nuclear threats. 

In other words, we restore conventional deterrence at the lowest possible level of the escalation ladder, deter the outbreak of a conventional war and minimize the utility to Russia of nuclear threats in support of conventional wars of aggrandizement. Or, to invoke Sun Tzu, we negate Russia’s strategy without firing a shot.

Therefore, it makes greater sense to deploy the entire corps rather than just its headquarters. Since we cannot presume Russian rationality as what we understand it to be, we must make our conventional and nuclear deterrence so credible that nobody, including Putin, can fail to understand that we mean business.

Stephen Blank, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). He is a former professor of Russian national security studies and national security affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College and a former MacArthur fellow at the U.S. Army War College. Blank is an independent consultant focused on the geopolitics and geostrategy of the former Soviet Union, Russia and Eurasia.

Source: TEST FEED1

Bannon 'chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law,' says prosecutor

A federal prosecutor on Friday accused Steve Bannon of refusing to cooperate with the House Jan. 6 Select Committee out of loyalty to former President Trump as a jury prepared to deliberate over whether to convict the right-wing political strategist of contempt of Congress charges.

Molly Gaston, an assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case, laid out her closing argument Friday, telling jurors that the case revolved around the simple question of whether Bannon willfully defied a subpoena from the select committee.

“The defendant chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law,” Gaston said.
“He has contempt for our system of government and he does not think he needs to play by its rules,” she added.

The jury in the case began deliberating late Friday morning after both sides made their closing arguments.

The trial is winding to a close after testimony from just two prosecution witnesses, Kristin Amerling, chief counsel for the select committee, and FBI Special Agent Stephen Hart.

Bannon’s lawyers rested their case on Thursday without calling any witnesses.

Evan Corcoran, one of the defense attorneys, argued in his closing statement Friday that Bannon is innocent of the contempt charges and that prosecutors failed to show otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

“We didn’t feel the need to put on a defense,” Corcoran told the jurors.

Corcoran drew multiple objections from prosecutors during his closing argument when he suggested to the jury that politics played a role in the select committee’s decision to hold Bannon in contempt and in the U.S. Attorney office’s decision to bring charges.

He pointed to Amerling’s admission on the stand this week that she had been a longtime congressional staffer working for Democratic members, and that she and Gaston had overlapped nearly 20 years ago as staffers for former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

She also revealed the two of them had been a part of the same book club that consisted primarily of former Waxman staffers, but insisted that she and Gaston were not personally close.

Corcoran said the connection “raises questions” and is among the issues that jurors could consider as reasonable doubt.

“Make no mistake, I’m not against book clubs, but why did Ms. Amerling try to downplay her relationship with the prosecutor?” Corcoran said.

But Amanda Vaughn, another assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case, dismissed the defense’s arguments as irrelevant to the ultimate question of whether Bannon purposefully defied the subpoena.

“There were two witnesses because it’s as simple as it seems,” Vaughn said in a rebuttal to Corcoran’s closing argument. “How much clearer could that subpoena have been?”

Source: TEST FEED1

Baby Boomers consider mental health days more important than Gen Z does

In America, Gen Z individuals–or those born after 1997–have been praised by some for their open-minded attitude about mental health. 

Even so, results of a new survey conducted by Innerbody Research suggest older generations, particularly Baby Boomers, value taking mental health days more than their younger colleagues. This older cohort is also commonly classified as having less open attitudes towards mental health in general.

Researchers polled 763 individuals who took a mental health day in 2022 to assess their opinions about taking a respite. 

Only 36.4 percent of Gen Z participants surveyed classified mental health days as “absolutely necessary” compared with 51.7 percent of Baby Boomers, or those born between the late 1940s and early 1960s.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

The survey also revealed differing opinions based on sex and work form as more women classified these breaks as important than men and those in hybrid roles tended to feel the strongest about their importance. According to authors, the latter finding was indicative of a larger trend: “those in more flexible environments are more likely to find mental health days important.”

Recent surveys have also detailed lower job satisfaction rates among working women but higher levels of burnout, which may play a role in the findings.

More stress than usual at work and general burnout were among the top reasons listed for individuals taking the day off, authors wrote, and those who did take a day off reported higher levels of happiness. 

The health detriments of chronic stress have been well-documented. Studies have shown it can lead to high cortisol and blood pressure levels along with subsequent digestion and immune problems. 

“Mental health days are not long-term solutions, but they can help you identify a better strategy for a more serious problem or just relax after a period of heightened work stress,” report authors added.

Additional participants surveyed represented Generation X and millennials, with no more than two percent of each age group polled reporting thinking a mental health day wasn’t very important.  However, this finding is not surprising, as the survey was only distributed to those who recently took one. 

Currently, members of Gen Z are more likely to seek therapy and report poor mental health than those in other generations.

“There may be more concepts Gen Z considers crucial for their mental health than just taking a day off work, especially compared to previous generations,” researchers wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ex-Trump DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark hit with legal ethics charges over post-election role

Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department attorney at the center of former President Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results, was hit Friday with ethics charges alleging that his role in the post-election effort amounted to a breach of legal ethics.

The charges, filed by the D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel, sets in motion disciplinary proceedings over allegations that Clark engaged in dishonest conduct and sought to interfere with the administration of justice, and will culminate in findings that could affect Clark’s D.C. law license.

– Developing

Source: TEST FEED1

Klobuchar asks FTC to investigate Amazon's $3.9 billion move to acquire One Medical

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a fierce critic of Amazon’s market power, is urging the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the e-commerce giant’s proposed $3.9 billion acquisition of primary health care provider One Medical.

The Minnesota Democrat, chair of the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, asked the FTC in a letter Thursday to investigate the deal over concerns she said it raises about anti-competitive behavior in the pharmaceutical industry and sensitive data it would allow the company to accumulate. 

“This proposed transaction raises questions about potential anticompetitive effects related to the pharmacy services business Amazon already owns and about preferencing vendors who offer other services through Amazon,” Klobuchar wrote. 

“I also ask that the FTC consider the role of data, including as a potential barrier to entry, given that this proposed deal could result in the accumulation of highly sensitive personal health data in the hands of an already data-intensive company,” she added. 

An Amazon spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The American Economic Liberties Project has pushed for regulators to block Amazon’s One Medical Acquisition, calling it dangerous. 

“Allowing Amazon to control the health care data for another 700,000+ individuals is terrifying,” Krista Brown, a senior policy Analyst at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement.

Brown said the deal would “entrench Amazon’s growing presence” in the health care industry in a way that undermines competition and poses “serious risks” to patients’ sensitive data. 

Klobuchar has been an outspoken critic of the market power of Amazon and other tech giants. She’s the lead sponsor on a bipartisan antitrust reform bill, the American Innovation and Online Choice Act, that aims to keep industry giants, including Amazon, from preferencing their own products over their rivals. 

The bill advanced out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this year with bipartisan support, but it has not been called for a full Senate vote. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump leads Biden, Sanders in hypothetical 2024 matchups: poll

Donald Trump is leading two of his prospective Democratic rivals in hypothetical 2024 matchups, a sign that the former president would be a viable political force should he choose to make another run for the White House.

A new poll from Emerson College found Trump running 3 percentage points ahead of President Biden, with 46 percent choosing the former president and 43 percent picking the incumbent. In a hypothetical matchup against another would-be candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump leads 45 percent to 40 percent.

Trump hasn’t yet said whether he will launch a comeback campaign in 2024, though he has repeatedly teased the possibility and is said to be weighing an announcement as early as this year.

Biden, meanwhile, has said that he plans to run for a second term in the White House, despite recent polling showing that most Democrats don’t want him to seek reelection.

Sanders, who sought the Democratic nomination unsuccessfully in 2016 and 2020, is also seen as a potential 2024 contender, though he has said that he will not challenge Biden for the nomination if the president decides to run for a second term.

One of the hurdles for Biden remains his sagging approval ratings. The Emerson College poll released on Friday found that just 40 percent of voters approve of his job performance, while 53 percent disapprove.

Of course, even if Trump ultimately decides to run for the White House again, he could face a challenge for the Republican nomination. While he’s currently seen as the favorite for the 2024 GOP nod, recent polling has shown other would-be candidates – most notably Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis – gaining ground in a hypothetical primary matchup.

The Emerson College poll surveyed 1,078 registered voters from July 19-20. It has a credibility interval – similar to a margin of error – of +/-2.9 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Maryland man sentenced to 8 years for using Library of Congress wifi to download child pornography

A former Architect of the Capitol employee who worked at the Library of Congress was sentenced on Wednesday to eight years in prison for using the Library’s wireless network to download images and videos of children being sexually abused.

Gary Lee Peksa pled guilty in December to a child pornography charge and will be placed on supervised release for 20 years after leaving prison.

Peksa regularly used the WiFi at the Library of Congress to access child sex abuse material, the court determined, which he would view on his cellphone in the bathroom, his office and a breakroom.

U.S. Capitol Police seized Peksa’s cellphone after the Library of Congress was notified of traffic on its WiFi network related to the sexual exploitation of children.

Officials also found that Peksa accessed child abuse material over his laptop and cellphone at home, each containing hundreds of files.

Peksa will be registered as a sex offender for at least 15 years and will be required to pay $47,000 to the victims of sexual abuse depicted in the photos and videos he viewed.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations Washington Field Office’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force in conjunction with police. The Department of Justice’s Project Safe Childhood initiative was also involved.

Source: TEST FEED1